Though fans and writers routinely criticize the quality of play seen during Thursday Night Football games, there’s no denying the demand for the broadcasts is there. The Jets-Patriots game in Week 2, the first NFL Network broadcast of the season, drew an average of 8.8 million viewers, making it the highest-rated opening game on the network in its eight years of showing TNF. Last week’s Giants-Bears game attracted an average of 7.8 million, still good enough to be the highest rated cable broadcast of the evening, topping a competing playoff baseball game by nearly two million viewers.

It stands to reason that if fans are going to watch it, the league is going to continue doing it, no matter of the validity of objections. And so not only will Thursday Night Football continue, but the NFL potentially wants more of it.

“The process is still in the preliminary phase, (a) person familiar with the league’s strategy said. Executives have discussed the issue with media outlets but the league isn’t shopping a specific package and no formal offers have been received, the person said.

“Adding another several hours of football on Thursday nights would have significant implications in the TV industry. Thursdays have historically been a big night for advertisers like auto makers and movie studios looking to promote weekend openings. As a result broadcast networks put some of their best shows on that night.”

“Potential buyers of the games would likely be national cable sports networks. But league officials have also considered selling the Thursday night package to a nontraditional media partner, including online players like Netflix Inc. or Google Inc., the person said.

I don’t doubt that the NFL could make it work from a financial standpoint, as maximizing profits is what the league does best. That said, even more than the concern of diluting their product by presenting more of it at a time when its quality is diminished, the league’s potential expansion of Thursday Night Football flies in the face of the NFL’s ever-increasing (purportedly) emphasis on safety. Take these recent comments by 49ers receiver Anquan Boldin:

“But there are some things that just don’t make sense to me. I mean if you’re so concerned about player safety then why do you have every team in the league playing on Thursday night when they just competed on a Sunday, knowing how difficult it is for guys to get back to being healthy after playing on Sunday? Guys really don’t feel like they’re back till probably Thursday or Friday to prepare for that next week.”

Boldin paused and then added:

“The league can say they’re doing things to protect guys, but I’m not one of the guys buying it.”

Someone floated an idea a while back that would solve this problem *and* give the Rog the 18-week season he craves:

Simply make it so that the two teams playing on TNF have their bye the week before. The first week’s matchup wouldn’t count and the last week of the season you could play with too, but the sixteen weeks in the middle would feature all 32 teams.

That way, the TNF teams would have ten days to rest before the game and ten days to rest after it. (A team would play Sunday, October 6th as part of week 5, for instance, then have Sunday the 13th off with a bye in week 6, and then play again Thursday, October 17th, as part of week 7, and then play again Sunday, October 27th as part of week 8.)

I haven’t sussed this out, but it seems like a way to address the legitimate concerns of the players while still maintaining a TNF game each week and stretching the season out for 18 weeks the way the league (and many fans) would like.

I was just about to propose this. The one point I’d make is THE ROG wants an 18 *game* season not an 18 *week* season. More games = more money.

That being said, the 18-week season with each team getting two byes can still be done. It would also help for those London games the NFL keeps pushing on us.

The networks might object to some degree as their product is being somewhat diluted, but from the fan’s point of view, it just means more games we can watch. I don’t think the NFL benefits much from having eight simultaneous games on Sunday anyway and an 18-week season would ensure more exposure for its product.

But if the NFL is all about making as much money as possible, why don’t they just open up the NFL package to all of the TV providers instead of allowing Direct TV to maintain its artificial monopoly?

Open it up to TWC, Optimum, FiOs, Comcast and all others and allow EVERYONE the opportunity to buy it at $49.99 for the season. I for one would absoFUCKINGlutely buy that shit and re-up every season. Hell, I’d even pay up to $100/season if I could watch all my team’s games. Sure it’s cannibalizing the need for RedZone but everyone will be able to self select any and all games every week.

@jackin4beats. I am sure the NFL ran the numbers whenever they entered into the Directv agreement, and the was the most profitable model at that time. The Directv deal ends this year, so I am sure that they will run the numbers to maximize profit through the next deal, whatever it may be. If they are smart, they will shorten the deal and renegotiate every few years so that can keep the money train rolling.

Well, this would be a compromise of sorts — the networks would get 18 weeks of games with all the ad revenue those broadcasts would bring, though the teams wouldn’t get the additional gate revenue. Still, cut them in on the deal and you’re solid.

I’ve heard that DirecTV actually loses money retaining the NFL rights, but makes it back, and then some, with ancillary services, subscriptions and fees. We’re a nation of 300 million+ and have only a hand full of cable providers. So the customer is going to get screwed and Roger Goodell is a shameless, neo-Gilded Age robber baron asshole.

The only problem that I have with your solution, Otto, is that Simmons was the one that floated this solution a while back, and if this solution actually comes to pass, then Simmons will gloat about it for the rest of his life.

And we can’t have that. So if this solution is to come to pass, there is one thing that has to be done. Someone is going to have to assassinate Simmons.

I am apparently the only dissenting opinion on her. That song is awful and I just don’t think she’s all that hot. Admittedly, part of the reason for this might be the fact that she’s the daughter of snake oil salesman/all around shitbag Deepak Chopra. I just can’t overlook that she is the spawn of that turd.

Statistically, Thursday night games are better played than Monday night games, per a post KSK had a week or two ago. The media complaining makes people have the incorrect opinion that the Thursday games are sloppier, when they really aren’t. I think what the original poster means by “the fans demand it” is that that ratings are higher than anything else on TV on Thursday night, so there is an economic demand (i.e. supply and demand). I personally like Thursday night football, but I think one game is enough and it can be organized like Otto suggests above so the players get more rest.

This is going to come off as snarky, shitty, or whatever, but it seems like most football writers, this site included, do a lot of hand-wringing about protecting the players, but still watch and love their teams and the games. I think the whole idea of 16 games versus 18 games or playing Thursday versus playing Monday is basically putting a band aid on a broken leg. You might as well be advocating for smoking only on the weekends, or smoking 16 cigarettes instead of 18 cigarettes a day.

Considering lineman get micro-concussions on every play and helmet to helmet hits are unavoidable as the game is played today, these arguments are pointless, and don’t address the major problem of cumulative injury over time (pop warner -> high school -> college -> NFL). Unless they fundamentally change the game and/or the equipment, any minor tweaks really aren’t going to do shit, so the hand-wringing is pointless. So you either have to live with the fact that this is a violent game and the participants are irreversibly damaging themselves and stop pretending that minor tweaks will do anything, or advocate for a complete overhaul of the equipment and rules to avoid these obvious problems. Otherwise, all your doing is pretending like you care through rationalization in order to justify the game and ease your troubled mind.

Ape, my point was that you shouldn’t take issue with scheduling under the guise of injury, which you missed. I think Sarah made a point once that writers complaining about Thursday night games has more to do with them having to cover Thursday night games than actually caring about injury. My point was that writers (and fans!!) throw their hands up in the air and say “Thursday night games and 18 game seasons will cause injury! I care about the players!”, when cumulative injury is the real problem. The reason fans and writers do that is to justify watching an inherently violent game, and convincing themselves that they are part of the solution. If writers and fans really cared about the well being of the players, they would stop watching/boycott the NFL. Otherwise, it is all window dressing.

Cumulative injury happens whether games are played every Sunday or on Thursday with short rest, which is the much larger issue. I used concussions above, but look at someone like Earl Campbell, who can’t walk. He played 14 games a year and had no Thursday night games. If it was short rest, all NBA players would be handicapped.

tl;dr: NFL fans and writers complain about scheduling under the guise of preventing injury to make themselves feel better about watching a game that is inherently violent to its participants regardless of scheduling.

I think the bigger issue with Thursday night games is the short recovery time since the teams are playing just four days prior. If a bye preceded all Thursday night games, it would allow more recovery time which would help somewhat with injury prevention.

So the sport is inherently dangerous. I’d say that justifies any safety measure, however small. More rest and recovery time for players is as elemental and feasible as safety measures can get. Total overhauls do not render unnecessary less encompassing alternatives. But, hey, that fallacy has spawned millions of lucrative careers in politics and punditry.

It might be double think, but the violence and physicality are appealing, but at the same time, I don’t want anyone to be seriously injured. I wasn’t pretending to cringe when I saw Austin Collie almost die in that Colts/Eagles game or when Kevin Everett got paralyzed.

Total overhauls do not render unnecessary less encompassing alternatives..

And my point was missed. I am not opposed to these alternatives. They just don’t do anything in the long run for the inherent problems in football (concussions, life-long bone, muscle and injury issues), and I am fine with that. I just hate articles that presume they do (this is not one of those articles).

@Nip It’s not double think. Even during the “Jacked-Up!” era, audiences cringed at the injuries to Darryl Stingley and Mike Utley. Now even “bell rung” and ankle/knee/hip injuries provoke the same reaction. (Not for Mattt Cassel or Matt Schaub, but I digress.) More compassion and empathy with injured players is proggress, not seeing the injured NFL player as being on the wrong side of the gamble he took in playing the game. I mean, Jesus, how can someone not admire Austin Collie for taking to the field again? Or, for that matter, Boldin, DeSean Jackson, or (gulp) Peyton. I see extreme bravery, which is extremely appealing.

That is how the first post came off anyway. I think the general complaint is talking player safety out of one side of the mouth and then talking about increasing revenue and exposure at the expense of player safety out of the other. I don’t think most people talk like no Thursday night football will solves everything; it will just make it better for the players to adequately recover.

It is a strong taek and I agree. This is a grass roots issue that will continue to be an issue until there is a universal pop warner guideline to teach kids. And I’ve been saying a while that football equipment needs to be modify/reduced.

Can someone show me the benefits of playing on Sunday v. playing on Thursday, and quantify how “it is better for players to adequately recover”? Honestly, these guys beat the shit out of each other to a point that they should play every other month. That’s why boxers fight 4 times a year.

I get the point that small steps lead to big changes, but do we really want football to change? Probably not. But if we advocate for small steps, we feel all warm and fuzzy inside that we are doing SOMETHING, even though we really don’t want it to change. I just accept the fact that I love football the way it is, so I won’t rationalize it by pretending to care about two extra days rest. (Strnogest of taeks).

So I will stop posting on this, because my point is not popular and is difficult to convey, and will ignore all future posts bitching about scheduling. Have a lovely day.

A vast majority of players and coaches complain loudly about the Thursday games; I guess I’m willing to take their words for it. We have a chance at four games Sunday and Monday, more with a DVD. that is twelve hours of media saturation. I suppose you could also argue that they get the same amount of recovery time split over two weeks. I personally would trust players and coaches word rather than the bean counters.

There is no way the NFL lets Netflix “broadcast” an NFL game, they are unlikely to leave the dying model TV execs are trying to hang on to. Also, as a cord cutter who gets all of his NFL games through streaming, that would work out way too well for me.

Agreed with Ape, I have heard that players are so banged up that it really is hard for them to get ready in four days. And that’s not including concussions. That’s swollen ankles, twisted knees, hands lacerated, bruises to the torso. The sport is a hell of a lot rougher on the body than it looks like it is watching on tv. These guys make getting fucked up look easy but it does take its toll.

I’m not fucking saying two extra days heals everything and you know that. 99% (guess for my purposes) of players hate the Thursday games; if it didn’t make a difference they’d be less enthusiastic in their objections. Also if you’ve ever raced or done athletics in a competitive environment you’d know that two more days makes a huge difference in soreness, road rash, bruising, etc. healing.

Wait wait wait, “Adding another several hours of football on Thursday nights”?

When exactly are they planning on adding all these hours? Before the current game so people with 9-5 jobs miss the first quarter (or more) on their commute? After the current game so those same people have to miss most of that or forgo sleep? Or is the NFL just planning on using all it’s power to add more hours to Thursday night?

I wish they’d address a bigger concern: That amount of fucking commercials during a game. It’s obviously been a problem for a really long time, but, this season seems to be really bad. Even though the team will last no more than 5 seasons, if London can get a team and force the NFL to fix this problem, I’d be down for every team getting a bye week whenever they play the London Jaguars.